Of the top of my head as soon as you hit 0 in your main balance it would turn orange, with a notification banner on the top of your transaction feed that you could tap on for more info which would then explain that your main balance is overdrawn and if you continue to spend and exceed the amount out have in your pots charges will apply.
Then if you do spend more than you hold in pots your main balance figure would changed from orange to red.
Again you’d have a more info banner and this will show you how much of that will have fees/interest applied to it.
I’m not sure if that’s a good solution or not but at least the system would be fairer, it would be up to someone else to actually decide the best implementation. But don’t think that just because it seems hard to display the logic, that it shouldn’t be applied.
Not what I said. Term and conditions yes but a credit agreement is entirely different. And it’s a very brief document m, in basic English, with the pots bit near the top
Yeah I know my question was how do they show if you’re in your overdraft, does you account say -120, 20 in overdraft? how is it clear to the user is my question
Thinks of all the years I’ve spent studying contract law, writing government regulations and interpreting English and EU legislation… and concludes T&C and credit agreements are really not that different…
Yeah im not too fussed about ‘fairness’ personally. I think if you’re into your overdraft and have money set aside in a savings pot then you should remove it to cover your account amount just as you would with any of the legacy current and savings accounts. I don’t really see the issue with getting a notification that you’ve ran out of money and then moving around your money in your super easy accessible app to solve the issue. I don’t have an overdraft set up and so it’s what I have to do if I want to buy something thats more than the amount of money in my account, so why is it really any different?
Regardless of the that though my main focus personally would be on usability as that is what Monzo has so far really hung their hat on and what has gained the super large amount of customers it currently has; a super accessible easy to use current account that makes spending and saving very visible and easy to understand. I presume this is Monzo’s no.1 focus when making new features on changing things so makes sense to me that they treat pots and overdrafts as they do. But each to their own.
edit: super. haven’t mentioned super enough.
edit 2:
I think it’s worth weighing in on the clarity/t&cs argument thats also happening. I actually agree that it doesn’t matter what’s in the T&Cs it should be clear and obvious to the user regardless. However, I reckon it’s plenty clear enough in the App that when your account balance, the main number you see above your current account, goes into the negative you have a negative balance and will be charged an overdraft. I don’t really see how this isn’t clear to a user and to be honest seems pretty fair to me personally. But again, everyone has different opinions on this which is also fair enough.
Doesn’t seem fair to me that I can borrow Monzo’s money in the form of an overdraft without paying, while Monzo continue to pay me interest on my pots.
Think it’s worth noting that the 39% is the rate for an unauthorised overdraft if you haven’t already got an authorised overdraft. If you do then it will be charged at either 19%, 29% or 39% (depending on the rate Monzo give you next week)
I’m happy to agree to disagree. I’m all about the fairness.
Emphasis mine. This is my point though, Pots aren’t a separate account, they sit within their respective account be that Personal, Joint, or Business. If they sat within a separate savings account and someone’s personal account went into the minus then by all means I think charges should apply.
But when they sit within the account where the main balance has dipped and the pots cover that amount, then it’s a different matter in my opinion, as in this case monzo hasn’t actually lent that account anything at that point.
I guess it depends how you see it. I see pots as Monzo savings accounts that are much more accessible and easy to set up and use than a traditional savings account. When I was legacy I didn’t have the savings account for the ‘interest’ (quotes because it was basically none) I was getting it was for separation of funds. So to me pots are a user friendly version of that, which means I still see them as separate accounts effectively. You don’t have cards and have the ability to pay for things with savings accounts so it’s really just the same thing.
Couldn’t have put it better myself and this is exactly why Monzo need to revisit this decision.
3 Likes
Anarchist
(Press ‘Help’ search ‘Contact us’ or email help@monzo.com or call 0800 802 1281)
548
This used to be true.
I recall arguing, before Monzo changed the presentation, that it was unfair for them to impose overdraft charges on accounts which weren’t in overdraft. Back then, the account balance presented on the home screen included cash in pots.
Nowadays, the current account balance is presented separately from the balance in pots and any funds in savings.
I’m not sure whether or not giving pots a separate account number would clarify the situation much more, but it surely wouldn’t hurt.
If they had their own product terms, separate to the main account, I’d wholly agree with Monzo’s terms of charging. The account number part is largely irrelevant. If it is it’s own product it makes the difference.
I think predatory is an acceptable term here. They are charging people for being overdrawn who aren’t by the true the definition of the term overdrawn.
As has been mentioned before if the pots where a separate product that would be different but if I have a £1000 in my account Made up of £250 account balance and 3 pots With £250 then if the account goes overdrawn by 10 monzo aren’t being charged and they are not losing any money. My overall balance remains £740 in credit.
There’s no way that was the original intent. It was always a savings device. They only brought in bills from pots because people asked for it because they were using pots differently to the original intention.
Edit: found the original post and designs that show they were intended for saving and not for separating bills money:
